The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1887-03-01

sidered to have been waived by COM
plainant. The time to make that
objection was when he first came.
The objection about Mr.. Garstin's
share Of the capital, fl 900, did not
cause any injury to the business.
The second 1000 was accepted
when it came, and so the retraction
of his signature was waived by the
complainant.
His Honor then referred to the
alleged exhaustion of partnership
funds. According to the evidence
of the Garstins, they have been able,
and are still able to contribute all
that is necessary for current ex-
penses. No other evidence has been
offered that there was an exhaustion
of funds, and that they were thereby
disabled from being partners. The
refusal to contribute to the Decem-
ber payments had been well ac-
counted for. If complainant took
possession of the books, they, the
Garstins, might reasonably say they
refuse to contribute towards the
payments to the Office until they
had been restored. The evidence
of thejsupporting witnesses, Messrs.
Starkey and Schemerthorn, relates
to matters and circumstances that
would not come within the Courts
view of gross dissensions and want of
prudence. The method of keeping
the cash by the three partners jointly,
is hardly to be commended. If Mr..
Garstin's method of keeping the
time book had led to a second pay
ment, it was easy to rectify it. The
payments were made in the presence
of all of them and Mr.. Swift might
well have taken notice of the previ-
Gus payment which was entered on
the same page. 1t was repaired by
the diligence of Mr.. Swift. An over
sight, single oversight had oc-
cured, but no fraud had been
charged, only carelessness, but the
books being kept by all three, the
blame does not fall so sharply as it
might in another case. They might
have amended their system of book
keeping, but where there is joint
bookkeeping the blame is measur
ably divided. His Honor thought
that there was no occasion for the
ill-feeling that had been alleged by
complainant as arising from this
circumstance. 1t need not have
contributed to that state of feeling
which would make partnership i'm
possible.
His Honor here discussed the
differences of opinion that had been
expressed on steam plowing. They
rebutted the statement of Swift that
they had given contrary orders.
That being the case, there was not
any controversy, nor was there any
contest and quarrel on those points.
All through, the tendency of the
testimony of complainant was that
the defendants were designedly and
of set purpose trying to ruin the
business in which they had invested
100000. 1t did not seem to His
Honor to be reasonable. He could
not see any ground to justify an
alienation between these gentlemen.
1t arose on complainant's part. He
need not have felt as he did. The
other parties did not feel it.
His Honor referred to the laying
out of the fields, another subject of
dispute. Mr.. Swift had taken 8
position that was entirely inconsist-
ent with there being three equal
resident partners. He deemed thai
his knowledge was superior and hi'
methods must be followed. Taking
his knowledge and experience
TO he superior he had, how
ever, associated himself with them
as equal partners, yet had as
sumed the position of directing OF
managing partner. Mr.. Swift had
no right to invest upon being the
manager, and excluding the Cars
tins altogether. The position was
no more tenablc than for one of tho
ouioVlIIS W uuNC bhNEu ouCh ljOoI
ton towards him. In respect tc
laying out the burrows by the theo.
dolite, another source of dispute
the testimony is that the Garstin.
did not differ essentially as to me
thod from Swift. Whether Swift
, method was the best or not, Hi
Honor was not in position to con
troll that matter. There should no
have been an irritation of feeling
, Right or wrong, having taken then
in as partners, without reservation
of the management, he Mr.. S. coult
, not say they should not have thei
share of doing certain work. Th'
same line of remarks would apply Il
wedding, irrigating and earthing up
AS to contradiction of orders
while the plaintiff was absent, 1t
, assumed that the two partners coult
not direct the laborers in their work
, The proper method would have beer
for Mr.. Swift to have made
arrangements with his partners be.
fore he left. AS to their parting
, company in their place OF residence
it need not be followed by dissolu
tion of partnership. II will Otter
happen that people cannot keel
house together. 1t often arises tha